MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906739023 · doi:10.29173/cais990

Proficient Use of Open Data Requires These Core Information Skills: An Open Data Community Perspective

2018· article· en· W2906739023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Smit, Chantel Ridsdale, Adrienne Colborne

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceOpen dataSociologyKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expanding access to open data, such as government data and research data, requires that we consider how citizens and stakeholders can best access the value these data hold. Should individuals rely on an intermediary to create information products from the data, or should they dive in and work with raw data? Building on previous work defining a core set of data literacy skills, we convened a workshop with 34 open data professionals to define the core set of skills for working with open data: "open data literacy". Analysis of their perspectives reveals a focus on non-technical skills, like creativity, curiosity, and critical thinking, as a priority over technical skills like coding and visualization. We describe their perspective in detail, and reflect on the significance of our findings for information professionals.Élargir l'accès aux données ouvertes, telles que les données gouvernementales et les données de recherche, exige que nous examinions comment les citoyens et les parties prenantes peuvent le mieux accéder à la valeur de ces données. Les individus devraient-ils compter sur un intermédiaire pour créer des produits informationnels à partir des données, ou devraient-ils faire le plongeon et travailler avec les données brutes? Sur la base de travaux antérieurs définissant un ensemble de compétences de bases permettant de travailler avec des données, nous avons organisé un atelier avec 34 professionnels des données libres dans le but de définir un ensemble de compétences de base permettant de travailler avec des données ouvertes : « open data literacy ». L'analyse de leurs perspectives révèle que l'accent est mis sur les compétences non techniques, telles que la créativité, la curiosité et la pensée critique, plutôt que sur les compétences techniques comme le codage et la visualisation. Nous décrivons leur point de vue en détail et réfléchissons à l'importance de nos constatations pour les professionnels de l'information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.031
Scholarly communication0.0200.025
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207